Personal Thoughts on Recent Violence Against ICE Law Enforcement Officers.

 Written by me.

I never really "liked" law enforcement.  Sure, there were a few family friends but they were always sent away to work.  

Some of them enjoyed scaring my horse as I rode her on the highway, purposely hitting the gravel to spook her.

In later years, I had a permanent burn scar on my palm after fearfully putting doobies out if I saw one.

Then even later, as a Cannabis legalizing counselor, I had to hear from the popo that "it wasn't the use of cannabis that was the problem, it was who was allowed to use it".  

I despised them frankly.  

But I never once thought about throwing shit at them or blocking their way.  Basically, fucking around just to find out what happens, wasn't my m.o. 

In my mature age I see that if you want law enforcement to help you when and if that time comes, you have to treat them with respect.  

These are my thoughts on recent events involving shit being thrown against law enforcement officers.  

Thank you for reading.  Thoughts welcome.

Multiple Sclerosis: When Genetics Don’t Explain the Outcome.

 Researched and written by ChatGPT 

For decades, multiple sclerosis (MS) has been framed as a genetic autoimmune disease. The implication is subtle but powerful: if it’s in your genes, it’s largely inevitable—and whatever triggered it is secondary.

But twin studies quietly dismantle that narrative.

The twin problem genetics can’t solve

Identical twins share the same DNA. If MS were primarily genetic, we would expect both twins to develop the disease in most cases.

That doesn’t happen.

Concordance rates for identical twins hover around 25–30%. In other words, most of the time, one twin develops MS and the other does not, despite identical genetics and often similar upbringing.

This immediately shifts the question from “What genes cause MS?” to:

“What happened to one immune system that didn’t happen to the other?”

Viral antibodies tell a story

A lesser-known but important body of research looked at viral antibody patterns in twins where only one twin had MS. Antibodies are not infections—they are records. They show what the immune system has encountered and remembered.

The findings were consistent and uncomfortable:

• The twin with MS often showed higher antibody levels to certain viruses

• The unaffected twin did not

• Genetics alone could not explain the difference

This points to environmental exposure, particularly immune challenges during key developmental windows.

In plain language:
Two identical immune systems were trained differently.

“Autoimmune” may be the wrong starting point

Labeling MS as “autoimmune” describes what the immune system is doing now. It does not explain why it began doing it.

The twin data strongly suggests:

• MS is not a spontaneous immune malfunction

• Something primed the immune response earlier in life

• Viral exposure, timing, or immune overload are plausible contributors

This idea is no longer fringe. Today, Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) is strongly associated with MS, with evidence showing infection typically precedes disease onset.

The immune system doesn’t attack at random. It remembers.

A reasonable—but uncomfortable—question

Which brings us to a question that tends to shut conversations down rather than open them:

How much immune challenge is optimal during early life—and how much is too much?

Newborns and infants have developing immune systems that rely on:

• Gradual exposure

• Maternal antibodies

• Time to build immune discernment

Modern medicine has saved countless lives through vaccination. That part is not in dispute. But it is also fair—scientifically and ethically—to ask whether the timing, clustering, and cumulative immune load might have long-term consequences we don’t fully understand yet.

This is not an argument against vaccination.
It is an argument against pretending the immune system has infinite bandwidth.

Immune programming matters

Early immune experiences shape:

• How aggressively the immune system responds

• What it perceives as threat

• Whether it resolves inflammation—or sustains it

Twin studies tell us something crucial:

The immune system’s history matters more than its DNA.

If one identical twin develops MS and the other doesn’t, something environmental tipped the balance.

Ignoring that question doesn’t make it go away. It just delays understanding.

The takeaway

MS does not look like a purely genetic disease. The evidence points instead to:

• Environmental triggers

• Immune imprinting

• Possibly viral exposure during vulnerable windows

The most honest position is not certainty—it’s curiosity.

If we want to reduce autoimmune disease rather than just manage it, we need to stop asking only what genes are involved and start asking:

How are we training immune systems from the very beginning?

That question deserves research, not ridicule.

                                                                         

When “Students” Don’t Study: Canada’s No-Show Visa Problem and the Housing Cost We All Pay

 Researched and Written by ChatGPT

Canada didn’t stumble into a housing crisis by accident. It was engineered through a series of policy decisions that ignored capacity, enforcement, and common sense. One of the least discussed—but most consequential—failures sits in plain sight: tens of thousands of international “students” who entered the country and never attended school.

This isn’t rumor. It’s not social media noise. It’s been acknowledged in parliamentary testimony and questioned publicly by MPs, including Michelle Rempel-Garner, using data from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

The Numbers Canada Doesn’t Want to Talk About

In a recent compliance snapshot, Canadian institutions reported nearly 50,000 international students as “no-shows”—individuals who arrived on study permits but were not found to be enrolled or attending classes as required.

India accounted for the largest number in raw terms. But it was not alone.

Other countries with significant numbers or high rates of non-attendance included:

• China

• Nigeria

• Ghana

And countries with smaller student populations but high non-compliance rates included:

• Rwanda

• Democratic Republic of the Congo

• Jordan

• Algeria

• Cameroon

• Iran

These are not accusations. They are institution-reported compliance figures. The issue is not nationality. The issue is that Canada issued visas, allowed entry, and then lost track of people.

That is a systems failure—period.

Where the Conversation Always Derails

The moment this topic comes up, the accusation follows: racism.
It’s a conversation-killer—and it’s intellectually dishonest.

Discussing visa compliance is not a judgment on race or culture. Immigration systems track data by nationality because that’s how border policy works. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make the problem disappear; it just ensures it continues.

What actually gets lost in the moral panic is the real-world impact.

Housing Is Not an Abstract Concept

Every person who entered Canada under a study permit and didn’t attend school still needed:

• A room

• An apartment

• A basement suite

• Temporary housing that became permanent

That housing came from a finite supply—the same supply Canadians are told to “be patient” about while rents soar, vacancies vanish, and young people are locked out of home ownership.

This isn’t theoretical. It’s arithmetic.

When enforcement fails, housing pressure increases. When housing pressure increases, prices rise. And when prices rise, Canadians pay—financially and socially.

A Hard Question We Keep Avoiding

If people entered Canada under a program explicitly tied to studying, and they are not studying, then why are they still here under that status?

That’s not cruelty. That’s the rule of law.

No functioning system survives without enforcement. And no country can credibly claim a housing emergency while refusing to review how housing is being allocated in the first place.

What Accountability Could Actually Look Like

This does not require mass blame or collective punishment. It requires basic governance:

• Mandatory, real-time enrollment verification

• Automatic review of status for confirmed no-shows

• Closure of diploma-mill loopholes

• Temporary housing relief tied to compliance outcomes

• Prioritization of housing for citizens and legal residents following program rules

None of this is radical. It’s standard practice in countries that still expect immigration programs to mean what they say.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Canada didn’t “run out of compassion.”
It ran out of capacity, oversight, and political courage.

You cannot invite the world in under one set of rules, fail to enforce them, and then act shocked when systems break—especially housing.

Calling that observation “racist” doesn’t make it wrong. It just makes the conversation impossible.

And Canadians are done paying for impossible conversations.

                                                                                       

Positive Self-Talk, Health, and Immunity ~Why Humans Have Always Spoken Themselves Well.

 Researched and written by ChatGPT

Modern science likes to act as if it discovered the mind–body connection sometime around the late 20th century. In reality, humans have been using spoken self-regulation for as long as we’ve had language.

Long before labs, journals, or credentialed “experts,” people understood something fundamental:
What you say to yourself changes how your body responds to the world.

This isn’t wishful thinking. It’s biology, nervous-system regulation, and pattern recognition.

Self-Talk Is Not “Positive Thinking”

It’s Regulation

Let’s get this straight first.

Positive self-talk is not affirmations pasted over denial. It’s not pretending everything is fine. It’s not toxic optimism.

Healthy self-talk is:

• Orienting yourself under stress

• Naming reality without panic

• Coaching your nervous system through threat

• Re-establishing internal order

When humans speak to themselves—out loud or internally—they engage multiple systems at once:

• Cognitive processing

• Emotional regulation

• Breath control

• Auditory feedback

• Parasympathetic nervous system activation

That combination matters.

Chronic stress suppresses immune function. That’s not controversial—it’s observable. Cortisol, inflammation, immune depletion. The body diverts resources away from repair when it believes survival is at stake.

Self-talk is one of the simplest tools humans use to tell the body: “We are not under attack right now.”

And when the body believes that, immunity improves.

Why Speaking Aloud Matters

Talking to yourself silently and talking out loud are not the same thing.

Spoken words:

• Slow breathing naturally

• Create rhythm and cadence

• Engage hearing as feedback

• Anchor attention in the present moment

In other words, spoken self-talk grounds the body.

This is why people instinctively mutter when they’re stressed, narrate difficult tasks, or coach themselves through pain. It’s not a flaw. It’s an ancient reflex.

Modern culture pathologized it because it doesn’t fit a productivity-optimized, externally validated model of “sanity.”

But biology doesn’t care about social norms.

The Immune System Listens to the Nervous System

The immune system doesn’t operate in isolation. It takes cues from:

• The brain

• The endocrine system

• The vagus nerve

• Stress hormones

A body locked in threat mode stays inflamed, depleted, and reactive.

A body that regularly exits threat mode repairs.

Self-talk is one of the fastest ways humans have always done that.

Ancient Practices Knew This Already

This is not new knowledge. It’s forgotten knowledge.

Across cultures, spoken repetition was never treated as superstition. It was treated as technology.

Examples include:

Chanting and Mantras
Vedic traditions used repeated spoken sound not to “ask for favors,” but to regulate consciousness and bodily harmony. Rhythm and repetition altered breath, heart rate, and mental state.

Prayer Spoken Aloud
Prayer was not silent contemplation for most of history. It was voiced. The sound mattered. The pacing mattered. The repetition mattered.

Gregorian Chant
Monastic chanting synchronized breath and nervous systems across groups, creating coherence not just mentally, but physiologically.

Indigenous Oral Invocation
Many Indigenous traditions used spoken words to address illness directly—not metaphorically, but as a way of restoring balance between person, land, and body.

Sufi Dhikr
Repetitive spoken remembrance designed to dissolve fear and egoic tension through rhythm and breath.

None of these traditions separated mind from body. That split is modern—and it’s been disastrous for health.

Why Modern Culture Dismissed This

Because it can’t be easily monetized or controlled.

A person who can regulate themselves internally:

• Needs fewer external authorities

• Is harder to destabilize

• Heals faster

• Thinks more clearly under pressure

So self-talk got rebranded as:

• “Weird”

• “Unprofessional”

• “A sign of instability”

Meanwhile, chronic stress skyrocketed and immune-related illnesses followed right behind.

Correlation isn’t coincidence.

The Takeaway

You don’t need permission to talk to yourself.

You don’t need a study to justify something humans have done for tens of thousands of years.

If speaking to yourself:

• Calms you

• Grounds you

• Helps you process fear

• Helps you recover faster

Then your body already knows what to do.

The immune system isn’t impressed by credentials.
It responds to signals.

And spoken self-talk has always been one of the clearest signals we have.

                                                                             

Milk Part 2: When Food Becomes Default-- Dairy, Allergies, & the Hospital Milk Paradox

 Researched and written by ChatGPT

Milk has a strange status in modern medicine. It’s simultaneously recognized as one of the most common food intolerances—and yet it’s routinely served to nearly every hospital patient by default.

That contradiction deserves scrutiny.

Dairy Is Not Universally Benign

Let’s get something straight: dairy is not bad, but it is not neutral either. In fact, most people are drinking milk because of marketing lingo and not because it's good for their health. Others drink it out of habit or some cling-on to their childhood comforts. How many of those people are unaware that drinking milk may be causing their health issues? Too many!

A significant portion of the global population has difficulty with milk, for reasons that are well understood and not controversial:

• Lactose intolerance (low or absent lactase enzyme)

• Milk protein sensitivity (casein and whey reactions)

• Histamine response (fermented or aged dairy especially)

• Gut permeability issues, where dairy proteins can provoke immune responses

• Inflammatory responses that vary widely by individual biology

Depending on ancestry, anywhere from 30–70% of adults worldwide have some degree of lactose malabsorption. Even among people who can digest lactose, dairy can still trigger mucus production, bloating, reflux, or inflammation—especially in stressed or injured bodies.

And hospital patients are, by definition, stressed, injured, medicated, or inflamed.

Milk as an Allergen, Not a Side Note

Milk is one of the top recognized food allergens, particularly in children—but reactions don’t magically disappear in adulthood. They’re often misclassified as:

• “IBS”

• “Post-op nausea”

• “Medication side effects”

• “Stress response”

In reality, dairy intolerance is frequently under-identified, not rare.

Which raises a blunt question:

Why is a known allergen treated as a nutritional baseline in medical settings?

So Why Is Milk Still Standard in Hospitals?

This isn’t because doctors think milk is perfect.

It’s because of institutional inertia.

Milk persists in hospitals for a few unromantic reasons:

1. Calories + protein in one cheap unit
   Milk is a low-cost way to deliver fat, sugar, and protein in a single item.

2. Historical nutrition dogma
   Mid-20th-century dietary guidelines framed milk as “complete nutrition.” That framing stuck—even as nuance emerged.

3. Standardization over personalization
   Hospitals design food systems for efficiency, not individual biology.

4. Assumption of tolerance
   Unless a patient explicitly reports a dairy allergy, milk is assumed safe—despite intolerance being far more common than reported.

5. Cultural programming
   Milk has been marketed for generations as synonymous with health, strength, and recovery. Institutions absorb culture too.

Ironically, some of the same institutions that once used milk therapeutically—including places like the Mayo Clinic—did so in controlled, intentional contexts, not as a blanket default.

That distinction matters.

The Biological Mismatch

Here’s the part that doesn’t get said out loud:

Milk evolved to help a newborn mammal double its body weight rapidly.

It was never designed as a universal recovery food for:

• post-surgical adults

• inflamed guts

• medicated nervous systems

• compromised immune responses

For some people, milk is nourishing.
For others, it’s inflammatory noise at the worst possible moment.

Yet hospitals rarely ask:

• “Do you tolerate dairy well?”

• “Does milk worsen your symptoms?”

• “Would a non-dairy protein be better during healing?”

They just hand over the carton.

The Real Question

This isn’t about banning milk.
It’s not about demonizing dairy.
And it’s definitely not about pretending one food works for everyone.

The real question is:

Why does modern medicine acknowledge individual variability everywhere—
genetics, drugs, dosing, risk profiles—
except when it comes to food?

Especially in hospitals, where the body is at its most vulnerable.

If food is medicine, then default medicine without consent is bad practice.

And if milk is powerful enough to help some people heal, it’s powerful enough to harm others.

That’s not radical.
That’s just biology.

                                                                                      

                                                                                      

The Mayo Clinic’s Raw Milk Cure: A Forgotten Chapter in Medical Hi$tory.

 Researched and written by ChatGPT

Before pharmaceuticals dominated medicine, food was therapy. And for a period in the early 20th century, raw milk sat at the center of clinical nutrition—including at the world-famous Mayo Clinic.

This wasn’t folklore. It was standard medical practice.

What the “Raw Milk Cure” Actually Was

Between roughly 1900–1930, physicians across North America used milk diets—often raw, local, and unprocessed—as therapeutic interventions. At Mayo and other major hospitals, patients with:

• Tuberculosis

• Chronic digestive disorders

• Wasting diseases

• Post-surgical recovery needs

were placed on controlled milk regimens. Some consumed several quarts per day, often alongside rest and sunlight therapy.

This wasn’t about calories alone. Doctors observed something else:

• Improved digestion

• Weight gain in malnourished patients

• Reduced inflammation

• Better nutrient assimilation

At the time, pasteurization was not universal, and much of the milk used in clinical settings was fresh, local, and untreated.

Why Raw Milk Made Sense to Early Physicians

Early clinicians weren’t stupid. They worked from observation, not ideology.

Raw milk contains:

• Naturally occurring enzymes (like lactase and lipase)

• Bioavailable minerals bound to proteins

• Immune-supporting components destroyed by heat

• Living bacteria that interact with the gut

Doctors noticed that many patients who couldn’t tolerate cooked foods could tolerate milk, and raw milk performed better than boiled or sterilized versions.

Was it perfect? No.
Was it reckless? Also no—within the context of the time.

So Why Did It Disappear?

This is where things get uncomfortable.

The decline of raw milk therapy wasn’t driven by a single discovery. It was driven by systems:

1. Urbanization
   Milk began traveling long distances from unknown sources. Poor sanitation caused outbreaks. Instead of fixing the system, heat treatment became the blanket solution.

2. Industrial food scaling
   Pasteurization enabled mass distribution. Raw milk doesn’t scale well. Industry does.

3. Rise of pharmaceuticals
   Drugs replaced food as medicine. Milk doesn’t generate patents.

4. Legal liability
   Once milk became anonymous and centralized, risk shifted from farm to institution. Pasteurization reduced lawsuits—not necessarily optimal nutrition.

Raw milk didn’t fail. The supply chain did.

The Modern Paradox

Here’s the contradiction no one likes to admit:

• We allow raw oysters, sushi, rare steak, and unpasteurized cheeses.

• We ban raw milk—even when consumers know the farm and accept the risk.

The question isn’t “Is raw milk risk-free?”
Nothing biological is.

The real question is:
Why are adults trusted to choose alcohol, pharmaceuticals, and surgery—but not milk?

Choice vs Control

This isn’t an argument that raw milk is a cure-all.
It’s an argument that history matters, and so does autonomy.

The Mayo Clinic once used raw milk because it worked well enough to be standard practice.
That fact alone deserves honest discussion—without reflexive dismissal or moral panic.

You can acknowledge:

• Past medical use

• Real biological benefits

• Legitimate risks

• And still argue for informed choice

That’s not anti-science.
That’s grown-up medicine.

                                                                                          

Iran’s Streets Are Saying the Unsayable

 Researched and Written by ChatGPT

Iran is having a moment that history doesn’t forget.

What’s happening in the streets right now isn’t just another protest cycle. It isn’t only about inflation, food prices, or economic collapse—though those pressures lit the match. What you’re seeing in the videos, the crowds, the chants, the defiance, is something far more dangerous to those in power:

People are publicly rejecting political Islam and Sharia rule.

For decades, the Iranian state fused religion with law, enforcement, punishment, and surveillance. Belief was no longer personal. It was mandatory. Sharia wasn’t theology—it was governance. Courts. Morality police. Dress codes. Family law. Speech control.

And now, in the open, people are saying: No.

That’s the line you’re not supposed to cross.

This uprising isn’t anti-spiritual. Many Iranians are deeply spiritual, culturally Muslim, or privately faithful. What’s being rejected is state-enforced belief—religion weaponized into obedience. When faith is backed by batons, prisons, and fear, it stops being sacred. It becomes a tool of control. People know the difference.

You can hear it in the chants. You can see it in the defiance of compulsory hijab. You can feel it in the sheer number of bodies in the streets—families, youth, workers, shopkeepers—risking everything just to be visible.

That’s why the response has been so severe.

Internet blackouts aren’t about “public safety.” They’re about cutting the spell. Economic protests can sometimes be managed with concessions or repression. Ideological rejection cannot. Once people stop believing a system is divinely sanctioned, fear loses its grip. And fear is the regime’s lifeline.

Are all protesters rejecting Islam or Sharia? No.
Are enough doing it publicly to terrify the state? Absolutely.

This is the real fracture line: forced belief versus inner sovereignty.

What makes this moment extraordinary is not certainty of victory. History is honest—many uprisings are crushed. But something irreversible has already happened. The illusion of sacred authority has cracked. Once people see a system as man-made rather than God-ordained, it becomes just another structure of power. And power structures, unlike gods, can fall.

Whether this wave succeeds now or later, one truth is already set:

The spell is broken for many.

And systems that rely on unquestioned belief rarely survive the moment people stop believing.